Rhaedas

I guess we need to take the power back. Someone should write a song.

That has its own slope of discrimination from data due to being able to pay or not. If we determine a certain thing is okay ethically to screen for, anyone should be able to get it. Bad enough to have one gray area, we don’t need a gradient of gray everywhere.

My first question was, why is this a target? This is terrorism and outside war rules (insane that we have rules for war instead of just not having it). Laws are only as good as their enforcement though.

He’s tackling the big issues first.

We’ve approached the time where the meaning of laws is more of a guideline towards our own actions. A law without official enforcement is just words on paper.

Don’t forget about all the busy stuff going on in Mos Eisley surroundings as they travel to the catina. The wider shots of the landspeeder were great, but all the shit that kept forcing its way into the screen ruined the moment.

Rick McCallum: “It’s so dense. Every single image has so many things going on.”

Plinkett: “Fuck you, Rick Berman. You ruined this too? Stop ruining - hey wait, that ain’t Rick Berman. What is it with Ricks?”

The cleaning up of the special effects, that’s a no brainer must have. I didn’t realize they weren’t as good as I remembered in the theater as a 9 year old. Including the Falcon escaping - I thought for sure that was original until I happened across a scene, and it was almost a shock it wasn’t nearly as great.

We can have sympathy for Han’s situation once we understand the details and the universe he lives in (hell, Cassian is worse, or maybe we just don’t see everything Han’s done for a cause not as great as the rebellion), but it’s necessary to paint Han first as a ruthless asshole whose character changes as he’s exposed to things. It’s funny how Han shooting first gave more depth to him, and Lucas making him more defensive ruined it - not by much, but he shouldn’t start as a good guy. He’s NOT a good guy.

But someone assessed they were still a valid target, right? We aren’t quite at the fully autonomous attack craft yet, are we? That would be a convenient excuse, blaming the AI/drone because the humans in charge totally wouldn’t have done that. Totally. Especially knowing it would be found out by the world.

Enough buyouts and the parent can have creative acronyms.

L. I. B. M. R. Ducks.

You’re correct on their limitations. That doesn’t stop corporations from implementing them, sometimes as an extra tool, sometimes as a rash displacement of paid labor, and often without your last step, checking the results they output.

LLMs are a specialized tool, but CEOs are using it as a hammer where they see nails everywhere, and it has displaced some workers. A few have realized the mistake and backtracked, but they didn’t necessarily put workers back. As per usual anytime there is displacement.

And for the record, while LLMs are technically under the general AI classification, they are not AI in the sense of what the term AI brings to the mind (AGI). But they have definitely been marketed as such because what started as AI research turned into a money grab that is still going on.

The second strike was murder. But so was the first strike. Even if they were running drugs, this is not how you handle the situation. If the only solution is to blow it up, then you’re looking for a reason to shoot at things, and the second attack proves that.

This is no different than the police problem we have domestically, where shoot first, don’t bother asking questions later because they’re dead is too common.

“Secretary of WAR!” - screams Pete drunkenly, probably

Useful maybe. For what purposes though… getting labor costs down, pumping out stuff fast assuming it’s correct because it’s AI, being ahead of their competitors. Useful as in productive? Maybe for some cases when they know what AI can and can’t do or its limitations. I get the impression from this year’s news stories that a lot of them jumped on it because it was the new thing, following everyone else. A lot got burned, some backtracked where they could, some are quiet but aren’t pursuing it as much as they advertised.

OP is right, companies will go the direction they feel consumers will buy more from, and if that’s a “No AI” slogan, that’s what they’ll put. There’s no regulations on it, so just like before with ingredients or other labeling before rules were set, they’ll lie to get you to buy it. Hell, from a software pov there’s a big thing now on apps being sold as “FOSS” that are not, because there’s no rules to govern it. Caveat emptor.

“No one knows more about construction than me.”

Maybe. It depends on if they raised prices first to capture the losses. I know that seems like what a business would do first and what everyone predicted, but did they?

If it’s true, then Costco just needs to give away free hot dogs meals (drink and side) to their patrons for a year.

Needs a continuation of the help desk, where you end up educating the person on the topic. And at some point get transferred higher up to someone who might actually be able to help, and it disconnects while on hold.

But that won’t make the FBI better, it will just… oh right, it was never about that.

This time it wasn’t projections, but prediction.

I can’t fault her using it in any way to profit. She’s given us warning, we’re not listening, might as well ride this to the end and make some money doing it. While still warning us of what’s pretty damn obvious now.